{"title":"无线本地环路应用的DECT, PACS和小灵通标准的比较评估","authors":"O. Momtahan, H. Hashemi","doi":"10.1109/35.920871","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"In a comparative analysis the performance and capacity of DECT, PACS, and PHS for WLL applications have been investigated. This article reports the results of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evaluation consists of a detailed comparison of the parameters of each standard and their relevance in WLL applications. In the quantitative analysis detailed simulations have been performed covering diversified sets of conditions. The results of both types of analysis are presented. A major conclusion is that all three standards provide satisfactory performance for WLL applications. For low-traffic environments PACS, which can employ larger cells, performs better than the other two standards. In suburban areas where, in addition to coverage, capacity is an issue, DECT has better performance. For high-traffic-density urban areas with great capacity requirements all three standards have good performance.","PeriodicalId":332944,"journal":{"name":"IEEE Personal Communications","volume":"13 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2001-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative evaluation of DECT, PACS, and PHS standards for wireless local loop applications\",\"authors\":\"O. Momtahan, H. Hashemi\",\"doi\":\"10.1109/35.920871\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"In a comparative analysis the performance and capacity of DECT, PACS, and PHS for WLL applications have been investigated. This article reports the results of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evaluation consists of a detailed comparison of the parameters of each standard and their relevance in WLL applications. In the quantitative analysis detailed simulations have been performed covering diversified sets of conditions. The results of both types of analysis are presented. A major conclusion is that all three standards provide satisfactory performance for WLL applications. For low-traffic environments PACS, which can employ larger cells, performs better than the other two standards. In suburban areas where, in addition to coverage, capacity is an issue, DECT has better performance. For high-traffic-density urban areas with great capacity requirements all three standards have good performance.\",\"PeriodicalId\":332944,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"IEEE Personal Communications\",\"volume\":\"13 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2001-05-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"IEEE Personal Communications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1109/35.920871\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"IEEE Personal Communications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1109/35.920871","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
A comparative evaluation of DECT, PACS, and PHS standards for wireless local loop applications
In a comparative analysis the performance and capacity of DECT, PACS, and PHS for WLL applications have been investigated. This article reports the results of both qualitative and quantitative analysis. The qualitative evaluation consists of a detailed comparison of the parameters of each standard and their relevance in WLL applications. In the quantitative analysis detailed simulations have been performed covering diversified sets of conditions. The results of both types of analysis are presented. A major conclusion is that all three standards provide satisfactory performance for WLL applications. For low-traffic environments PACS, which can employ larger cells, performs better than the other two standards. In suburban areas where, in addition to coverage, capacity is an issue, DECT has better performance. For high-traffic-density urban areas with great capacity requirements all three standards have good performance.